Posted on 12/07/2001 6:59:47 AM PST by ex-Texan
Ashcroft champions stern action
KAREN GULLO
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General John Ashcroft on Thursday aggressively defended stern law enforcement measures in the wake of terrorist attacks and suggested those who question hard-line tactics are aiding the enemy.
"We need honest, reasoned debate, not fear-mongering," said Ashcroft, who was called before Congress to discuss the detention of hundreds of people without charges and military tribunals for accused terrorists.
"To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve," he said.
"They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."
His defiant defense of the administration's law enforcement strategy seemed to catch Democratic critics off guard.
"The needs for congressional oversight is not to protect terrorists," Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told Ashcroft. "It is to make sure that our government has good reason before snooping into our bank records, our tax returns or our e-mails."
But several other Democrats took pains to voice support even while asking tough questions, and there were few harsh exchanges.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have stressed that they, too, want to see justice done in response to the terrorism of September.
"One option is to call Sept. 11 a fluke and to live in a dream world that requires us to do nothing different," Ashcroft said. "The other option is to fight back."
Holding up an al-Qaida terrorist manual, the attorney general said members of Osama bin Laden's network are exploiting the United States' openness.
"Terrorist operatives infiltrate our communities, plotting, planning and waiting to kill again," he said.
Ashcroft said the Bush administration's stern new policies are fair.
Leahy, however, said Congress should have more say in the policies.
Ashcroft's appearance came amid growing criticism from Democrats and civil liberties groups about relaxed wiretapping rules, detentions of hundreds of Middle Eastern men whose names have not been disclosed, and the Bush administration's plan to use military tribunals to try foreign terrorists.
Buoyed by recent polls showing the public generally supports the tactics, Ashcroft said his critics are uninformed.
"Charges of kangaroo courts and shredding the Constitution give new meaning to the term 'the fog of war,' " he said.
"Each action taken by the Department of Justice as well as the war crimes commission . . . is carefully drawn to cover a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists," Ashcroft said.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Americans want action.
"Do any members really believe that in this time of crisis, the American people really care whether the attorney general took the time to pick up the telephone and call us prior to implementing these emergency measures?" Hatch said.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said the tribunals present "enormous potential for abuse" and pressed Ashcroft for details about what rights defendants would have and whether the trials would be held in secret.
Ashcroft promised "full and fair proceedings" but said military trials would be closed if necessary to protect national security.
"When we come upon those responsible in Afghanistan, are we supposed to read them Miranda rights, hire a flamboyant defense lawyer, bring them back to the United States, create a new cable network of Osama TV or what have you and provide a worldwide platform from which propaganda can be developed?" he said.
As Ashcroft defended the trials, American Bar Association President Robert Hirshon derided them.
"The Taliban established Star Chambers," Hirshon said in a speech prepared for delivery today to the National League of Cities in Atlanta. "They held secret trials followed by public executions.
"The Iraqis also hold secret trials where execution is all but a foregone conclusion. This is not what America stands for."
Ashcroft wouldn't comment on any legal actions to be taken against John Walker, an American caught with Taliban fighters.
But he warned, "History has not looked kindly upon those who have forsaken their countries to go and fight against their countries."
When it comes to listening in on inmates' conversations with their lawyers, Ashcroft said the Justice Department tells all parties that their conversations will be monitored beforehand. He said he is confident all precautions required by the courts are being taken.
But federal officials are not willing to let terrorists communicate messages of planned attacks to their fellow terrorists through lawyers, as the al-Qaida manual instructs them to, Ashcroft said.
"I do not intend to hold individuals without access to counsel. . . . I don't believe that we are," Ashcroft said when Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., asked for assurances that detainees will be told of their right to counsel. » Send This Page | » Print This Page
But federal officials are not willing to let terrorists communicate messages of planned attacks to their fellow terrorists through lawyers, as the al-Qaida manual instructs them to, Ashcroft said.
Good point!
Ashcroft kicked booty. This article in the Oregonian was a major surprise to me this morning.
Ashcroft is fighting terrorist who want to nuke an American City and the Democrats are worried if they have spit balls -- sorry, I mean handguns. Spitballs, handguns, they're the same thing when compared to nukes.
Are the Democrats as brain-dead as they seem? Can they be that stupid?
In the meantime, Clinton will be taking heat over the fact he let Osama get away. The public will blame Clinton for the World Trade Tower deaths.
Yeah buddy, great quote.
"When we come upon those responsible in Afghanistan...", means "When we suspect someone, anywhere, anytime, on any evidence no matter how unreliable...".
What Ashcroft is saying is that anyone he (or his minions) secretly accuses of terrorism is guilty until proven innocent, but such proof will be extremely unlikely since we won't be allowing them to call any evidence, or hire a lawyer, or make any public statements about how they are being denied a fair hearing.
That's good stuff hey folks? That's the kind of respect the AG should have for the U.S. Justice system.
Your post is indicative of the hysteria the paranoid and the venal are trying to stir up.
Kennedy wasn't talking about people found in Afghanistan.
What makes you think they'll be following the UCMJ?
Even the UCMJ requires a unanimous verdict in capital cases. Bush's tribunals do not.
The executive order establishing the tribunals directed the Department of Defense to run them. This puts them in the realm of the UCMJ and not in the civil courts as would have been the case if the Justice Department was given the responsibility.
Ashcroft kicks BUTT !!!!!!!!!!!
Really?
"852. ART. 52. NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED
(a) (1) No person may be convicted of an offense for which the death penalty is made mandatory by law, except by the concurrence of all the members of the court-martial present at the time the vote is taken.
(2) No person may be convicted of any other offense, except as provided in section 845(b) of this title (article 45(b)) or by concurrence of two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote is taken.
(b) (1) No person may be sentenced to suffer death, except by the concurrence of all the members of the court-martial present at the time the vote is taken and for an offense in this chapter expressly made punishable by death."
Didn't you notice Johnnie Edward's ears raise at that remark?Az
You need to read a little more closely. Unlike a civilian court where all members of the jury must be present and must vote, this provision requires only the votes of "all the members of the court-martial present at the time the vote is taken". In other words, if only one of the judges shows up that morning, he can sentence you to death.
And this is good because...?
Any court where any of the judges deliberately did not show up for that purpose is indeed a kangaroo court.
"'To those who pit Americans against immigrants and citizens against noncitizens, to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve,' he said."
"'They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends.'"
"'Each action taken by the Department of Justice as well as the war crimes commission...is carefully drawn to cover a narrow class of individuals -- terrorists,' Ashcroft said."
You'd posed a host of questions to me concerning these very issues.
I would not speak for this man then, nor will I now; not when he can speak for himself, Jade.
If you watched this hearing (while they stuck with it) as had I?
Yea; he kicked some serious ass; & did-so within 15 minutes of his entering the chamber.
...the assholes-two Leaky Leahy & Kareless Kennedy looked the bafoons they really are.
Unbelievable.
All of a sudden the Democrats are concerned about civil liberties and the Constitution.
If you start by asuming that all military officers are corrupt by their very nature then you end up with the conclusion that this would be a kangaroo court. However, after 12 years in and around the military I can tell you that this is not generally the case despite what you might have seen in the movies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.